Login to vote in this poll.
Until the quality and the safety of 3D media reaches a certain level of practicality, I think having the game in 2D would be a better choice. This way, we get faster use of the medium's resources. Also, with today's high definition screens, 2D is a very dependable choice. Maybe though, it would be nice to have an option where the player may choose to switch back and forth between 3D and 2D modes. Therefore, it would cater to all types of players, and also friendly on all platforms (people with slower computers may choose to play in 2D while people with faster computers may choose to go with 3D).
Each version has its own merits. A 2D game is easier to spread and produce. Its easier to be accessible as more people would be able to obtain and play this game. However a 3D game has the power to fully simulate a real world environment. We are able to have more power.
Benjamin G Young
CoCu 177 : Winter 2012
I believe that the game should be presented in a 2D format. Since the game has important underlying concepts and themes, I think that "bells and whistles" and flashy graphics would only detract from the gameplay experience.
The mechanics of the game are most important, and 2D graphics would best serve this purpose. If it were more important to "fill in the gaps" where the experience of the story was not sufficient to convey the ideas trying to be put across, I could see 3D graphics beings a possibility. However, I think the Decrees make for a strong basis for a story, and a 2D environment would allow for the player to "fill in the gaps" with their imagination rather than having graphics put those images in their heads. I think the main idea behind procedural rhetoric becomes important here, wherein extra detail only derogates from the gameplay possibilities presented by the decrees.
2D, not just because of system requirements or access, but to also allow more focus on the underlying systems. To emulate realistic social structures is no easy task, the more resources available during development the easier it will be to faithfully generate what is designed here.
While 3D games can pull you in, how far do we want players to be removed from reality? By allowing players to still retain their distance from this game, they can more easily see the possibilities it presents to the real world.
This game, if realized, would benefit greatly from being available as a mobile application. It would increase availability and most likely the diversity of the participants. Many people do not play console games or pc games, but will download a free game for their phone/mobile device.
I agree, for the idea behind the game, 2D is more appropriate than 3D. The implementation of this will be heavily stats-based, meaning there will always be a bunch of numbers on the screen. Implementing the game in 2D would be a better choice, having the player navigate through everything with context menus. If the game were to be in 3D, with so many possible players and variables, this would be a tremendous task. Actually, a world map providing info should suffice, providing information about its countries, states, and citizens with the appropriate amount of depth and density (somewhat similar to how www.cybernations.net handles it)
I agree, by making the game 2D, the game would be playable by players who do not meet the system requirements or access, allowing a larger number of people in the world to have access to the software.
It's true that 3D games might be more enjoyable since it mimics the dimensions we see in real life, but I feel that it isn't necessary if the point of the game is not to display great graphics but to convey key points to the public and see how they interact with these points.
It's important to keep diversity in mind when creating a game. Players need to see different perspectives of the game so that the game isn't one note or boring. By making the game 2D, the game recieves a more diverse crowd of players which in return will make the game play more interesting internally.
For widespread play I think it should definitely be 2D. If we want this game to be a worldwide experience and played by many different people, the requirements to play need to be low. I also think since this is a simulation of life in this new society, there would be a lot of things to keep track of: the state of the area you live in, your job, your family, your finances, etc. I think the UI would be better if it was an entirely 2D game.
The nature of the game is very niche to begin with. Playing a simulation game about a new idealistic society isn't what most core gamers want. There should be no mind paid to appealing to the masses with 3D graphics. It would be a waste of resources.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I believe that the game should be 3D with multi-axis freedom. The reasoning is that 3D game environments allow for better immersion into a game. The graphics don't need to be very good but it has to be 3D. An example is when they used 3D immersion to treat PTSD in that one video we saw in class. 3D also signifies a better sense of freedom because you have different view points and better angles of the world and your own character. This game should be all about feel and not just about stats. The closer they players are to seeing a realistic environment and realistic avatars the better it is to immerse and get into the game.
However, with the quality of 3D today, there is still plenty of people who do not prefer 3D due to various reasons (nausea, headaches, eye pain, etc). Also, although i agree that 3D is pretty cool, I disagree with the idea that "graphics don't need to be very good". I think a game should have its priorities in place, and I believe that quality graphics in 2D definitely is more appealing than a game in 3D with poor graphics.
I prefer 2D game because of two reasons.
First, developer doesn't need to think about 3D graphic effect and user computing system, so they can more focus on the contents for game.
Second, it stimulates user's imagination when user is play game. (it's personal idea. It's personal reason that I am playing DOS game. For 2D game, they normally put more text than graphic effect, so user can think more to play the game )
Who is our target audience? What is our budget? Who is our team? These are important questions to discuss, as they will influence our decision in whether we make the game 3D or 2D.
Let’s start with who the creators of agoraXchange want to play their game. Directly quoting from their “faq” page we have, agoraXchange is for anyone who suspects that a proposal like this, in times like these, sounds intriguing. Please don’t think because you are not (or are) a gamer that you shouldn’t participate.” It seems like the creators want to cast a wide enough net, so as to not exclude anyone. Making the game 3D is visually appealing, but the costs become much greater. By costs, I’m talking about funding and people wise. It is much more costly to make a 3D game, and much harder to make a 3D game than it is to make a game with 2D graphics. And from what the creators state on your "faq" page, funding is in the few thousands, so it might not be wise to make a 3D game, which would surely call for a higher budget.
Additionally, making the game 3D increases the minimum system requirements, which may exclude potential players who don’t have access to newer computers. I’m sure this wouldn’t be a problem in the United States, but what about poorer countries? Also, making the game 2D would make the game run faster and much more smoothly, thus increasing the user’s experience with the game. Think about this scenario, 30 computers at the school library running on the same network. A network, mind you, that isn’t the best. This isn’t a T1 connection here. The school just can’t afford it. If the game were 3D, the kids might not want to play because it would just run so slow, but if the game were 2D, the game would probably be more enjoyable because it wouldn’t run as choppy. A 2D game would also mean that the opportunity to run the game from the internet browser (as opposed to downloading a game client) is much more feasible. This increases the accessibility of the game to a wide range of people.
And finally, from a player perspective, we might argue that people may be discouraged from playing a game that is 2D because it’s too old school or because it doesn’t have state-of-the art graphics. However, Braid is a prime example of how a 2D game can have massive commercial success regardless of its graphics engine. Thus, appealing to the 3D player base shouldn’t play such a big factor. If anything, the content of the game is much more important than the graphics engine. If we focus on the game mechanics, graphics won’t be much of a problem if they are 2D. I’m simply saying, a 2D game can have beautiful graphics.
In my opinion, 2D with fast downloading and low memory requirements is the way to go. I personally have not played with too many 3D graphics games but for the ones I have played, I realized that it's very difficult to control the views of the game with all the perspectives you are able to have. Yes, 3D is more realistic and seems like the game would be more "advanced" in a way but it will require a lot of memory and capabilites to do so. Whether the game is going to be on the web or installed on someone's computer, the system needs to have the requirements to handle the 3D graphics and if they dont't then it won't produce the best quaility. I thnk that 2D is more simplistic and having it in low memory will allow users to play it without worrying if their computers won't handle the game. And also, fast downloading will mean fast access to the game.
Whereas I understand your reasoning that the gameplay elements should be based on a 2D platform, by saying, "I personally have not played with too many 3D graphics games but for the ones I have played, I realized that its very difficult to control the views of the game with all the perspectives you are able to have," you're not arguing much for the benefits of 2D platforming that may potentially outweigh the costs of 3D platforming. For one, we're way past the age of 3D's introduction into the video-gaming world. Any bugs or glitches that may have been caused from it have been fixed, mostly. Many games with a behind-the-back, 3D platforming, third-person perspective are actually quite the charm in fact. You can check the reviews for games such as Uncharted, or the new line of dramatic-horror genre games released by Capcom's Resident Evil franchise. These games have been praised for their innovative game-play mechanics that utilize 3D camera perspectives, and the user-friendly control the player possesses over their character. And you also said, "whether the game is going to be on the web or installed on someone's computer, the system needs to have the requirements to handle the 3D graphics and if they don't then it won't produce the best quality." What entails your opinion for the "best quality"? And regarding the fact that computers these days might not be able to handle 3D graphics adequately, come on. World of Warcraft is a highly acclaimed MMORPG and is popular all over the globe. It uses 3D graphics, and the last time I checked, I didn't hear any detractors complaining because their personal computers weren't able to handle its 3D platforming. Games can still be quite popular and accessible in the 3D platform, but if you're concerned specifically about its accessibility to audiences that transcend the number of participants within WoW's Azeroth, maybe agoraXchange's developers can tone down the graphics card requirements of its software, yet still employ three dimensions. In this day and age, I think MMORPG's should reflect 3D platforming.
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies
WI12; Ayhan Aytes
I agree with Eric above, mostly because I think computational requirements for graphics is far less of an issue today than it was say, perhaps 10 years ago. I think the World of Warcraft example is an apt one because of the game's appeal cross the globe. Nowadays computers that are bought in stores can be somewhat close to performance of someone who pieces together a computer on their own, so long as the individual parts inside as similar in quality. Competition and development in the home computer market has driven down costs in this sense.
One thing I can point out is that this game doesn't necessarily have to be 3D in the sense that 3D = reality. World of Warcraft's graphics are quite different from, say Skyrim's, and as a result there are very different requirements for the two games. I think one important point to note here is that, should we create a 3D world, it doesn't necessarily remove the imagination that can be employed by individuals when playing. In fact, by allowing 3D interaction, it may be possible for individuals to interact with objects in the game in ways that spark their creativity more so than would be possible if the graphics were purely 2D. Think about machinima in this case, as it attempts to use an alternative world and simulation in the creation of new narratives for the user.
I personally think that 2D games are better than 3D games in various aspects. Even though playing 3D games provides an opportunity to get closer to virtual reality or some realistic experience. However there are still some problems with 3D games. First, recent study has found out that most of people who watch 3D screen for a long time will having symptoms like headache, nauseous and eye strains. This is due to that when watching 2D screen, both eyes focus on one point while eye movement and the lens adapt to depth. However, in 3D, our eye register movement but our body doesn’t, and the lens can no longer adapt the depth. Second, in order to play 3D games, you need to buy a 3D monitor with pair of 3D glasses because our normal eye can not detect the depth perception of 3D vision. Yet, 3D monitor and 3D glasses is both expensive luxury item that cost you about 400 dollars. As a result, it may limit the players who have finically struggle to buy a set.
Overall, the more advanced technology, the easilier it will affect our life. It is clearly that 3D computer games will cause long term health effects. We can still enjoy the 3D technology, but not so often, and it will not have seriously impact on our body.
In a game meant to persuade the masses, 3D is a must. Although developing a 3D game might be taxing and expensive, the end product will be better suited to consumers. Many people argue that accessibility is important, I must disagree. People would not even touch a game this day and age if the game is not presented well. Consumers are spoiled by the realistic and commercial games that corporations mass market. Without aesthetics, people wouldn't spend more than a minute on this game.
While I agree that in general consumers are quite spoiled, I think that games such as Minecraft and Braid are examples where bells and whistles are not everything to the player. What makes these games so loved isn't the great graphics, but the compelling gameplay and world. A 2D game can still be visually appealing, and with less resources being put into making an impressive 3d world, more time can be put into developing a distinct art style for the game.
With this project, I think the goal is not so much to create a brand and to market it as best as possible, but rather to create a game that as many people can access as possible. If we create a game that requires a new computer with an expensive graphics card, we are catering to the rich and ignoring a group of people who may want to play this game but simply can't. Thus, I think a 2d game with lower requirements and greater accessibility is the way to go.
I think the game should be 3-D but an artistic 3-D with very low requirements similar to World of WarCraft (WoW). Many people in many different nations including the poorer nations have some sort of WoW account when looking at the global demographics of the game. Having this type of graphic style would make the game more engaging because it would be more visually interesting and not many people are engrossed by sprites and pixel art as they were in the 1980s to the mid 90s or late 90s. In other words, having 2-D graphic would only make this appeal to a even more niche audience than what it is already going to appeal to which in itself is already very small. In other words, if one hopes to expand the game to further audiences than its initial audience than an artistic 3-D low requirement presentation is absolutely essential if it doesn't want to be doomed to obscurity.
I agree with the previous comment. I feel that the game should be in 2-D in order to allow for the contributions of those nations who are not as technologically advanced. It is important to keep the game aessable to the highest number of people because this is designed to be a global game. I also agree that there should be future options for the implementation of 3-D graphics. I believe that as technological advances are made and more countries have higher technological capacities the game should be able to switch over to 3-D. Also, it would be good to give the player the option of choosing 3-D or 2-D. I think that would be best because it would still allow the highest number possible to play the game.
Although the game is designed to be a global game, it has to still be attractive in order to sell and to keep its users. Imagine having a dull game to play, even though it is free would you play it? There are hundreds of free web based and download games and only the ones that are atrractive seem to be the leaders, such as Team Fortress 2, and League of Legends. I'm sure there are thousands of free first person shooter games and role playing games but because these two were developed with nicer graphics and game play, they have higher players. Making the game 3-D does limit those who are not able to get a computer that can run the game but with today's technology, it does not take much to run a nice game on a computer PLUS if you are located in a region where nicer computers are limited, I think there are other things on your mind rather then sitting and playing a game. For example, a family this is financially struggling may find it hard to buy a newer computer. a Family that is financially struggling may also find it hard to find time to play games. Of course this may not be the scenario for all people but to me, everything seems to balance out. Better game quality= more players.
skeadie makes a great point about access...and the technological requirements behind 3-D graphics could prohibit a large population from contributing to the game. However, the door should not be shut on 3-D graphics and a change to this in the future should be a possibility.
Because this is a global politics game, there needs to be a sensitivity to the technological capacities of as many places around the world as possible. The simple fact is that many nations are behind in their access to high performing computers and speedy internet access. Keeping it 2D will be pragmatic in that it will allow as many people to play as possible. Besides, the main point of this game is not to create a video game with the best graphics.
i think a 2D game would retain the aspects of political theory in the game. this abstract nature keeps the door open to pondering outside possibilities
I personally think that the 'fast downloading and low memory requirements' would allow more people to access the game - and more easily at that. The game would benefit from having as many people as possible participate in it, and this would be achievable with a 2D game. If the game was in 3D but required a specific browser or internet-speed connection to access, it would limit a large number of people from participating. Aesthetics are important, but access is essential.
I agree with this comment. Having the game in 2D is the practical and most realistic way to go. If many people had the specific browser and fast internet needed for 3D then it would be the best option. But realistically , you can't expect everyone to have these specific requirements for the best kind of graphics. I also admire what this person said in the last part of his comment that "Aesthetics are important, but access is essential" which is very true. How could you enjoy the best graphics of the game if you can't even access the game? And if you do have access to the game most people probably couldn't which would lead to the downfall of the game instead of success.
I disagree with these comments. Most computers nowadays can easily be played on 3D compatible machine so, this should not affect which players can and cannot play. However, I would like a more realistic approach and that's why I believe that it should be a 3D game. Also, there are many 3D browsers games out there already so this should not be an issue. This is possible because of many 3D engines one is the unity 3D engine which is an integrated tool for creating 3D video games or other interactive content. I do agree that "Aesthetics are important, but access is essential" but, I believe with nowadays technologies that access has become easier and easier and rarely plays a role compared to 10-15 years ago.